Free Software to Schools Still Carries a Price Tag

Editorial, ITWeb (Johannesburg), 14 February
2002

Johannesburg—The announcement last week that Microsoft plans to
donate free software to 32 000 schools in SA has caused a fair degree
of debate in both industry and open source circles. Particularly
considering the announcement followed just days after the National
Advisory Council on Innovation (Naci), a state body, released a
document warning against the threats of proprietary software and
urging government to adopt open standards and open source software.

Not only does the announcement of the free software donation steal the
wind from Naci's sails, but it also raises a number of questions
on government's understanding of software, as well as the degree
to which educational ICT efforts are co-ordinated within
government. It also brings into question the motivations of a
corporation as large as Microsoft, which is known to have monopolistic
tendencies.

Unlike most of the media which quickly applauded the Microsoft
announcement as the saviour of SA education, I still have a serious
sense of unease that the result could well be Microsoft's absolute
domination of the local software market, to the exclusion of all other
alternatives.

To be fair though, Microsoft's donation of free software to
schools is a significant step forward for local education
initiatives. Particularly because it single-handedly removes one of
the largest stumbling blocks to providing affordable ICT
infrastructure in local schools: the substantial cost of software
licences. This in itself is a notable achievement that shouldn't
be taken lightly.

Priorities

Response to the announcement has been particularly
subdued—unless you count local open source mailing
lists—and it is interesting to see that representatives of local
open source projects have been very diplomatic in their response. And
rightly so. After all, improving education in this country should not
be about product wars, but rather about providing the best solutions
at the most reasonable cost and as broadly as possible. If Microsoft
makes this even slightly more achievable, then the company deserves
the credit.

However, this does not negate the fact that there are alternatives to
proprietary software that have both cost (at least until now) and
technical advantages over many proprietary products. Clearly,
documents such as Naci's indicate that the government of the day
is starting to realise this and we can only hope that the donation
announcement does not obfuscate the issue and blind the powers that be
to the real opportunities that lie in open source software.

For open source advocates, the donation should be seen as a challenge
rather than an onslaught by Microsoft. For too long now we have been
arguing the cost and technical benefits of systems such as Linux over
proprietary software. Now that the cost factor has thankfully been
taken out of the equation, it is time that Linux advocates start
proving the technical benefits of the operating system rather than
just falling back on its cost benefits.

While credit should be given where due, it does not mean the country
should head blindly down the Microsoft road. As many of its critics
have pointed out, this is merely a start to the process. There is
still a lot of work to be done, and if school administrators think
their computer problems are over, they are in for a big
shock. Software needs hardware, which is not cheap. And software needs
support, patches and constant maintenance. And who are we going to
blame when viruses and security holes play havoc with school records
because of lack of understanding and support?

Let's take the donation in the spirit it was intended, but not see
it as an end to the education battle. And certainly not allow
ourselves to be blind to the available alternatives.